53 réponses à ce sujet

[draken-heart]

 i would've liked an option to strike out on my own, kill all the templars, including cullen and all th mages, except my sister

[Adanu]

Seriously? Why are we forced to pick a side when the insane lady has a "you're with me or against me" attitude that is totally clear throughout and Hawke him/herself holds Kirkwall as their home and does not want to leave?

[Jman5]

wowpwnslol wrote...

Between Templars and Mages?

My character was totally badass by the end of the game. If I had a choice, I'd slaughter both Templars AND Mages. Being forced to side with pansy mages or cowardly templar led by a psycho is not something I want to do. It would be cool to be able to take out the trash, that way maybe the war between chantry and mages would not have happened. Bioware did a bad job when they forced you to pick a side.

They force the issue because otherwise practically everyone would pick the "I can see both sides of the issue" option.

That said, I would have liked the "slaughter them both" option too!
*AOEs the entire courtyard* :innocent:

Modifié par Jman5, 07 avril 2011 - 12:25 .

[Cavegeta]

I wouldn't have minded being railroaded into one of two options so much if they would have at least had a little more variation. I pick mages, I kill templars and just about every mage I encounter (because they were blood mages), Orsino turns blood mage and I kill him, Meredith goes crazy and gets killed. Side with templars, the same thing essentially occurs with less Templar death. In the end you get a comment from Cassandra which states which side you sided with and very little fanfare.

I enjoyed the game but think that this was one of the major faults among others. Why couldn't siding with the mages result in Orsino not being a blood mage and thus result with me and Orsino fighting Meredith in the end. In turn, siding with templars would result in Meredith not being crazy. I also think that having a third option ala the way city guard scenarios have been stated would have been viable. That way, both Meredith and Orsino would be the end bosses.

I guess my frustration with the ending was that there was no type of Ultimate Sacrifice/Dark Ritual ending, which to me anyway, resulted in a more varied game/choice experience.

[Jman5]

Cavegeta wrote...

I wouldn't have minded being railroaded into one of two options so much if they would have at least had a little more variation. I pick mages, I kill templars and just about every mage I encounter (because they were blood mages), Orsino turns blood mage and I kill him, Meredith goes crazy and gets killed. Side with templars, the same thing essentially occurs with less Templar death. In the end you get a comment from Cassandra which states which side you sided with and very little fanfare.

I enjoyed the game but think that this was one of the major faults among others. Why couldn't siding with the mages result in Orsino not being a blood mage and thus result with me and Orsino fighting Meredith in the end. In turn, siding with templars would result in Meredith not being crazy. I also think that having a third option ala the way city guard scenarios have been stated would have been viable. That way, both Meredith and Orsino would be the end bosses.

I guess my frustration with the ending was that there was no type of Ultimate Sacrifice/Dark Ritual ending, which to me anyway, resulted in a more varied game/choice experience.

I think many will agree that over all the story was well written, up until the end. I understand you wanted to emphasize that there is no "right" choice, but did you have to make it so in-your-face? Or rather did you have to make it so every choice is so blatently the "wrong" choice?

Bioware could have emphasized that you are faced with a morally gray decision at the end without having both Meredith and Orsino go bat-****-crazy on you. I would have liked it if the consequences of siding with one resulted in the other being the final boss. Then afterward you get some somewhat subtle hints to show that maybe your decision wasn't for the best.

I think a perfect example would be if you side with Meredith. Orinso turns into a big bad abomination and you have your final boss fight. Then you win and everyone is happy. But just when we think all is right with the world, we learn that Meredith is in fact in possesion of the Cursed Relic and she is responsible for the uprising of the templar.

Conversely, you have a similar situation play out if you side with Orsino. Meredith goes all "glowey eyed" and you fight her as the final boss. Afterward when everything seems fine, the viewer learns that Orsino is secretly an abomination of unimaginable power. He then goes off to start the Mage Uprising.

Oh well, David Gaider is probably scowling at his computer as he reads about me second guessing his writing.

[Asdara]

But if either Meredith or Orsino "stays sane" if you side with them it validates your choice as the "right" decision - whichever one you pick. You go from a lose-lose to a lose-win dynamic, which is not what they set up through the building conflict stages.

[Darkshore]

Life forces you too make choices. Hawke wouldn't take the easy way out and walk away. The story drove the character to pick a side for good or ill and to change the fate of Thedas. You're character is a Hero, he is destined to be the deciding factor. Heroes don't get to walk away. That's how I see it anyways. (If this sounds silly...I blame my pain killers.)

[TJPags]

My Hawke wasn't a hero - he was just a guy trying to get away from Darkspawn, make some money, buy a house, maybe find a nice girl to settle down with. He didn't want any part of changing the world.

[Asdara]

TJPags wrote...

My Hawke wasn't a hero - he was just a guy trying to get away from Darkspawn, make some money, buy a house, maybe find a nice girl to settle down with. He didn't want any part of changing the world.

You know, I think that's a fairly well spotted piece of railroading that does occur and is extremely subtle.  When you have the discussion with Varric about not returning to Ferelden and express some 'plan' of progress in Act 2 - all the choices signal you will stay in Kirkwall for some semi-altruistic reason.  This implies that Hawke is, in fact, somewhat heroic whether you've played them that way to that point or not.  

It's an embedded reason to force the choice on Hawke, who is obviously heroic in some sense to have even remained in the city for this non-sense.  You even turn down what's practically an engraved invitation from the monarch of your home nation to keep thinking of Ferelden as home.  So... that's pretty insidious actually.  I'm impressed.

[Kelgair]

TJPags wrote...

Maker requires it.

The Order dictates.

The game doesn't end otherwise.

Take your pick.

Don't forget that the Qun demands it.

[lobi]

But thou must!

[Darkshore]

It does seem to go against "making your own character" type of play but the story that Bioware set for "Hawke" makes him out to be a Heroic character or at least a "Force of change" I believe this is why many people disliked the story. Some players really dislike not being able to make their own personal "Hawke" to a certain extent. EDIT: but then again Origins also did this in a way...sadly some people in my honest oppinion just want to complain.

Modifié par Darkshore, 07 avril 2011 - 07:22 .

[LyndseyCousland]

draken-heart wrote...

 i would've liked an option to strike out on my own, kill all the templars, including cullen and all th mages, except my sister

Modifié par LyndseyCousland, 07 avril 2011 - 07:31 .

[Bigdoser]

A friend of mine was watching me play DA2 through the weekend he watched me play the whole game I asked him what did he think about the mage/templar conflict. He said that killing mages for the actions of 1 person is wrong. I also asked him what would you say to those who want to stay out of the conflict and allow the mages to be killed. He showed me these two quotes and I agree. THIS IS ONLY MY POINT OF VIEW.

If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.

“No one can demand that you be neutral toward the crime of genocide. If there is a judge in the whole world who can be neutral toward this crime, that judge is not fit to sit in judgment.”

[Sjofn]

OldMan91 wrote...

Because sometimes sitting on the fence makes things worse. Just ask Grand Cleric Elthina.

Oh, right...

Indeed.

[Bigdoser]

Sjofn wrote...

OldMan91 wrote...

Because sometimes sitting on the fence makes things worse. Just ask Grand Cleric Elthina.

Oh, right...

Indeed.

Yup........

[TJPags]

Kelgair wrote...

TJPags wrote...

Maker requires it.

The Order dictates.

The game doesn't end otherwise.

Take your pick.

Don't forget that the Qun demands it.

Ahhh, good catch,  Forgot that one!!!

Thank you. 

[kimbabini]

It would not be heart-wrenching otherwise ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Suron]

Meridith forces you too..plain answer.

she says if you're not with her "the templars" then you're against them..even if you're not really supporting mages..by not helping the Templars..you're against them..and Orsino then turns on you regardless

[Kenrae]

A better job was made with The Witcher ending. At least you had three options there.

[Vicious]

Because you're the freakin Champion of the city.

If you don't give a damn enough to take a stand you should have left when the Qunari started taking over.

People who want a 'i don't give a damn' option are having a pipe dream.

And people who want a 'screw both of you i'm taking over' option, I can understand, but in the scope of the game [Hawke is not an unkillable demigod] it's unrealistic.

[Nuke1967]

I would agree with a third choice. I could see "The Champion of Kirkwall" saying "I see wrongs done in both camps, my duty is to the city and  protecting  the innocents" instead with siding with either mages or templars.

It would also be nice if some on each side agreed and joined Hawk to protect the city from them both.

Modifié par Nuke1967, 10 avril 2011 - 09:06 .

[OldMan91]

You may not be interested in politics/war/dialectics, but politics/war/dialectics is interested in you.

[SirGladiator]

I felt like a better question, instead of why are we forced to pick a side, would be why doesn't our picking a side seem to matter? Throughout the 3rd act, not just at the end, you can side with the mages and they still act like they think you're against them, they attack you, turn into abominations and force you to kill them, etc. its absurd how little difference your decision makes. I like the idea of picking a side, I like the idea of feeling like my decision actually meant something even better .

[TJPags]

Vicious wrote...

Because you're the freakin Champion of the city.

If you don't give a damn enough to take a stand you should have left when the Qunari started taking over.

People who want a 'i don't give a damn' option are having a pipe dream.

And people who want a 'screw both of you i'm taking over' option, I can understand, but in the scope of the game [Hawke is not an unkillable demigod] it's unrealistic.

Wait - where was that option?  I'd have taken it....